1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/608de521cb5991c71bd97c8d6b0a49c6.pdf?Expires=1782345600&Signature=I1vfCj%7ENw3Q-ezN6g5QN3txOn3TakJ2hqYr-A9vEglA4HLQS3fH%7EX4%7EA8HDDvGKJU91QHOnZkMh2EwRbupUWXOfiFY3uoCccEgbdZEpKSxjB38RiTMYt6rq-iPABEpKpaEo8gEW7E5xwOdf%7EZTZiXn3pbBQW6uhBOWDIlOv7yBFXETAnWZY8uQRffWEBtnLf%7EAnDz64nT2l2L6h9izv-uh8%7EieM823oyActj-0hhoEIX1oMkmE9bwiheJ12IYhyXPjUZcClkrfk8ERnPo7uWtRT67RzLV4XBkoigAFPgtakItFk8EJzMZajlGaTJe5Ivom4hww8nLplv%7EZuzauRsRA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
be99d0910501fa37475a11c54633344b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ROYAL PAUPERS
A Radical’s Contribution
TO
THE
JUBILEE.
SHOWING
What Royalty does for the People
AND
What the People do for Royalty.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
-------- ---------------
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
'•
■•
4
4
4
4
4
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�ROYAL PAUPERS.
-----------♦-----------
“ Our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Vic
toria,” as the Prayer Book styles her, has occupied
the throne for nearly half a century, and as she is
blessed with good health and a sound constitution,
she may enjoy that exalted position for another
fifteen or twenty years, and perhaps prevent her
bald-headed eldest son from acceding to the illus
trious dignity of King of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, and Emperor of India.
Whether she does or does not linger on this mortal
stage, and whether the Prince of Wales will or will
not live long enough to succeed her, is a matter of
trifling importance to anyone but themselves and
their families. The nation will have to support “ the
honor and dignity of the throne,” whoever fills it,
without the least abatement of expense; unless,
indeed, the democratic spirit of the age should ques
tion the utility of all “ the pride, pomp, and circum
stance ” of royalty, and either abolish it altogether or
seriously diminish its cost.
This being the fiftieth year of Her Majesty's reign,
the hearts of all the flunkeys in the nation are stirred
to their depths. There is quite an epidemic of
loyalty. Preparations are being made on all sides
�4
to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Busybodies
are meeting, discussing, and projecting. All
sorts of schemes are mooted, but the vital essence of
every one is—Cash ! The arts of beggary are devel
oped on the most magnificent scale, without regard
to the Vagrancy Act; and titled ladies, parsons’
wives, and Primrose Dames, condescend to solicit
pennies from sempstresses and charwomen. The
Prince of Wales, meanwhile, is devoting his genius
and energies to floating the Imperial Institute, which
promises to be a signal failure, unless the Chancellor
of the Exchequer comes to its assistance, because the
royal whim of fixing it in a fashionable quarter, in
stead of in the commercial centre of London, is a
barrier to its success.
How much of the money drained from British
pockets by such means will be spent on really useful
objects ? It may be safely predicted that a consider
able portion will flow into the pockets of the wire
pullers, but will any appreciable amount go to benefit
all classes of the community ? Will there, in parti
cular, be any advantage to the masses of the working
people, whose laborious lives contribute more to the
greatness and prosperity of the state than all the
titled idlers, whether scions of royalty or members of
the aristocracy, who live like gilded flies “basking in
the sunshine of a Court ” ? Time will prove, but
unless we are very much mistaken, the Jubilee will
be just as advantageous to the people as loyal move
ments have ever been.
It is a sign of the wholesome democratic spirit
which is beginning1 to animate the nation, that a few
�5
towns have absolutely refused to trouble their heads,
and still less to tax their pockets, with regard to the
Jubilee. But the most cheerful indication comes
from Wexford. The municipal council of that his
toric Irish city has ventured to make the following
sensible suggestion:
“ If the ministers of the Crown wanted to govern this
country in a quiet and peaceable manner, and not by fire and
sword, they would advise her Majesty to send to the starving
poor of this country, to relieve their distress, the half of that
eight millions which she has lying in the Funds, and which she
has received from the ratepayers. By this means they would
require no Coercion measure, but would make this one of the
most happy, peaceable, and law-abiding countries in the
world.”
This spirited though courteous suggestion implies
that Royalty has done less for the People than the
People have done for Royalty, that the balance of
profit is not on the national side of the account, and
that gratitude is not due by those who confer bene
fits, but by those who receive them.
During the present reign, the Royal family has
obtained from the nation nearly twenty-four million
pounds. What has the nation received in exchange
for that enormous sum ? I do not propose to reckon
in this place the value of the normal functions of
Royalty, as I intend to estimate it when I have calcu
lated the annual cost of the institution. I simply
inquire, at present, what special advantage has
accrued to us from her Majesty, and not another per
son, having worn the crown for the last fifty years.
Ireland may be dismissed from the inquiry at
once. She has no opportunity of gazing on the
Queen’s classical features, or even of being splashed
�6
with the mud of her carriage wheels; and, on the
other hand, the statistics of Ireland’s fifty years’ his
tory show that 1,225,000 of her children have died of
famine, while 3,650,000 have been evicted by the
landlords, and 4,186,000 have emigrated to foreign
lands.
There has, however, been considerable progress in
Great Britain. Our national wealth has immensely
increased, but Royalty has only assisted in spending
it. Science has advanced by gigantic strides, but
Royalty has not enriched it by any brilliant disco
veries ; for since George the Fourth devised a shoe
buckle, the inventive genius of the House of Bruns
wick has lain exhausted and fallow. Our commerce
has extended to every coast, and our ships cover
every sea; but the Prince of Wales’s trip to India,
at our expense, is the only nautical achievement of
his distinguished family, unless we reckon the Duke
of Edinburgh’s quarter-deck performances, and Prince
Lieningen’s exploit in sinking the Mistletoe. Our
people are better educated, but Royalty has not
instructed them. Our newspapers have multiplied
tenfold, but Royalty is only concerned with the Oourt
Circular. The development of the printing press has
placed cheap books in the poorest hands, and our
literature may hold its own against the world. But
what contributions do we owe to Royalty ? Her
Majesty has published two volumes of Leaves from
her j ournal, which had an immense sale, and are now
forgotten. They chronicle the smallest talk, and
express the most commonplace sentiments, the prin
cipal objects on which the Royal author loved to
�7
expatiate being the greatness and goodness of Prince
Albert and the legs and fidelity of John Brown.
Thousands of ladies, and probably thousands of
school-girls, could have turned out a better book.
And when we recollect that the Queers diary was
prepared for the press by the skilful hand of Sir
Arthur Helps, we may be pardoned for wondering
into what depths of inanity he cast his lines to fish
up such miraculous dulness. The only son her
Majesty has lost, and whose expenses the nation has
saved, was “ studious,” as that word is understood
in royal circles; but his speeches, although they were
furbished up by older and abler hands, will never
figure in any collections of eloquence, and it is
doubtful whether a lengthy life would have enabled
him to shine at Penny Readings without the advan
tage of his name. The Prince of Wales’s sons have
also put two big volumes on Mudie’s shelves (it
would be too much to say into circulation), yet their
travelling tutor acted as their literary showman; and
what parts of the exhibition were his and what theirs,
God alone knoweth except themselves.
It is not one of the stipulated functions of a
Queen, but it is reasonably expected, that she should
produce an heir to the throne. Her Majesty, in
obedience to the primal commandment, “Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth,” which is
seldom neglected in royal families, has borne the
desired heir, and many other children to take his
place if he or his offspring should come to an untimely
end. Her progeny is, indeed, remarkably numerous,
if we reckon all the branches, and if they breed like
�8
wise it will ultimately become a serious question
whether they or we shall inhabit England. As it is,
everyone of them is kept by the nation, for Her
Majesty, although fabulously rich, or as Johnson said,
“ wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice,” is never
theless too poor to maintain her own children. We
support them, and in the most extravagant fashion.
Yet they have absolutely no public duties to perform.
The Queen's duties are not onerous, and still less
necessary, but they are real however light. Her
offspring and relatives, however, do nothing for their
pensions. They never did anything, and never expect
to do anything. They are the recipients of public
charity, which does not change its essence because it
is administered by special Acts of Parliament. Dr.
Findlater defines a pauper as “ a poor person : one
supported by charity or some public provision.” Does
not this exactly apply to all our Royal pensioners ? Am
I not strictly justified in calling them Royal Paupers ?
There are paupers in palaces as well as in workhouses,
and in many, if not most cases, the latter are the
more honorable. Thousands of men who have worked
hard in their younger days far scanty wages, hundreds
who have paid rates and taxes to support the state
burdens, have eked out the sombre end of their lives
in the Union, and have been buried in a parish egg
box. They were called paupers, and so they were,
for there is no disputing the fact. But are not they
worse paupers who have never worked at all, who live
on other people from the cradle to the grave, who add
impudence to their dependence, and glory in their
degradation ?
�9
Why should the people fling up their caps and
rend the air with their shouts ? They owe Royalty
nothing, and they have no particular occasion for
gladness. It is, however, perfectly natural that the
Queen and her family should rejoice over her Jubilee.
Fifty years of unearned prosperity is something to
be grateful for, and if the members and dependents
of the House of Brunswick wish to join in a chorus of
thanksgiving, by all means let them do so; but let
them also, out of their well-filled purses, defray the
expenses of the concert.
Let us now estimate the annual cost of these Royal
Paupers, and of the Royal Mother of most of the
brood; in other words, let us reckon the yearly
amount which John Bull pays for the political luxury
of a throne.
When Her Majesty came to the throne, in June,
1837, it was ordered by the House of Commons
ee that the accounts of income and expenditure of the
Civil List from the 1st January to the 31st December,
1836, with an estimate of the probable future charges
of the Civil List of her Majesty, be referred to a
Select Committee of 21 members/'’ Those gentlemen
went to work with great simplicity. They ascer
tained what it cost King William to support “ the
honor and dignity of the Crown” during the last,
year of his reign, and they recommended that Queen
Victoria should be enabled to spend as much money
and a little more, for they put the cost of the various
branches of the Civil List into round figures, and
always to her advantage. One ’of King William/s
bills was £11,381 for “ upholsterers and cabinet-
�1G
makers/'’ but they surely could not have imagined
that her Majesty could require nearly twelve thou
sand pounds* worth of furniture every year. Nor
could they really have thought that she would spend
£3,345 a year on horses, or £4,825 a year on carriages.
Probably they felt that the subject was too sacred for
criticism. At any rate, they speedily produced an
estimate of £385,000 per annum as the amount
necessary “ for the support of her Majesty's house
hold, and of the honor and dignity of the Crown of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.”
The Civil List was settled at this figure by an Act of
Parliament, which received the Royal Assent on
December 23, 1837. No doubt Her Majesty signed
that precious document with the most cordial
satisfaction.
In February, 1840, Her Majesty married. Her
husband, of course, was imported from Germany.
The Queen was anxious that he should be hand
somely supported by Englishmen, Irishmen, and
Scotchmen. A desperate effort was made to procure
him an allowance of £50,000 a-year; but through
the patriotic exertions of a band of Radicals, headed
by Joseph Hume, the sum was reduced to £30,000.
On that paltry income Prince Albert had to live. It
was a severe lesson in economy, but his German
training enabled him to pass through the ordeal, and
in time he increased his scanty income by other
emoluments. He took £6,000 a-year as FieldMarshal; £2,695 a-year as Colonel of the Grenadier
Guards ; £238 a-year as Colonel-in-Chief of the Rifle
Brigade; £1,000 a-year or so in the shape of per-
�11
quisites as Grand Ranger of Windsor Great Park;
£500 a-year or so as Grand Ranger of the Home
Park; and £1,120 a-year as Governor and Constable
of Windsor Castle. Besides these posts, he filled
some which were honorary, and some whose value
was a secret to common mortals. When the lucky
German prince died he left a very large fortune, but
how much he contrived to amass is unknown, for his
will has never been proved.
Returning to the Civil List, we find it divided up
as follows :—Her Majesty's Privy Purse, £60,000;
Household Salaries, £131,260; Tradesmen's Bills,
£172,500; Royal Bounty and Special Services,
£9,000 ; Alms and Charity, £4,200 ; Unappropriated
Money, £8,040—Total, £385,000.
The £60,000 of Privy Purse money the Queen
spends as she pleases. She can say like Shylock,
“'Tis mine, and I will have it." The £8,040 of
Unappropriated Money appears to have been thrown
in to make up a round rum, or perhaps to provide the
Queen with pin-money, so that she might not go abroad
without small change in her pocket. The £13,200
for Bounty and Alms is supposed to be spent on
deserving objects of charity. How much of it is
spent we know not. But the fact that the sum is
voted for that purpose is calculated to lessen our
appreciation of Royal benevolence. When the ladies
get hold of the morning papers, and see by the Daily
Telegraph, or some other loyal newspaper, that Her
Majesty has sent so much to this charity, and so much
to that, they exclaim, “ What a dear good lady the
Queen is to be sure." They never suspect that her
�12
Majesty’s charity is exercised with other people’s
money. The poorest and the most penurious might
be charitable on the same easy conditions.
According to the Civil List Act, the other sums
were to be rigorously spent in maintaining the Royal
dignity; indeed, a clause was inserted to prevent
savings, except of trifling amount, from being carried
from one category to another. Yet it is well-known
that many sinecure offices in the Royal Household
have been abolished, while large reductions have been
made in the Household expenditure. Who benefits
by these savings ? Can any person do so but the
Queen ? Would she allow them to be appropriated
by others ? But if she “ pockets the difference ” it
is in violation of the Act. Whatever reductions are
made, so much less is admitted to be necessary for
the purposes specified by law, and it is the sovereign
who makes the admission.
Surely, then, these
savings, these reductions in the expenditure on
maintaining “ the honor and dignity of the Crown,”
should accrue to the State, and not swell the private
income of a fabulously rich old lady.
We shall peep into the Royal Household presently.
Before doing so, however, we must see the full extent
of the Queen’s resources. Besides what she derives
from the Prince Consort’s will, she has the income
accruing from the Nield legacy. Mr. J. C. Yield
died in 1852, and not knowing a more proper object
of charity, he left his poor Queen the sum of £250,000,
in addition to real estate. Her Majesty is reported
to have invested heavily in the Funds. She has also
private estates in England and Scotland, to say
�13
nothing of her estates in Germany. They are
returned as 37,643 acres, at an annual rental of
£27,995. Finally, there is the splendid revenue of
the Duchy of Lancaster, which, in 1886, amounted
to £45,000.
Being so enormously wealthy, her Majesty might,
taste the luxury of contributing, however slightly,
to the expenses of government. She voluntarily
undertook to do so in 1842, but never appears to
have kept her word. When Sir Robert Peel intro
duced his Income Tax Bill, in August of that year,
he made the following announcement:
“ I may take this opportunity of making a communication
which, I am confident, will be received by the House with
great satisfaction. When in an interview with her Majesty,
a short time since, I intimated that her Majesty’s servants
thought that the financial difficulties of the country were
such that it was desirable, for the public interest, to submit,
all the income of this country to a charge of £3 per cent.,
her Majesty, prompted by those feelings of deep and affec
tionate interest which she has always shown for the welfare
and happiness of her people, observed to me that if the
necessities of the country were such that, in time of peace,
it was necessary to impose a charge of £3 per cent, on income,
it was her own voluntary determination that her own
income should be subject to a similar deduction.”
There is no positive proof, but there is negative
proof, that this “ voluntary determination” was not
carried out. Mr. C. E. Macqueen, secretary of the
Financial Reform Association, wrote to Mr. J.
Wilson, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on
December 1, 1855, inquiring “ whether her Majesty
and the Royal Consort contribute their respective
quotas to the income and property tax.’'’ Mr. Wilson
replied that it was contrary to practice to answer
�14
such inquiries. He was technically right, but his
official reserve would scarcely have prevented his
making the statement, if it could be made, that Her
Majesty had paid the tax in accordance with her
promise. So much for the Queen’s “ deep and affec
tionate interest in the welfare and happiness of her
people.”
It should be added that the Royal estates escape
all Probate Duty, and that none of the Royal Family
have to pay Legacy and Succession Duties. Every
thing is arranged by a loyal nation for their comfort
and profit.
But, strange as it may sound, we have not yet done
with the cost of a Queen. There is a long list of
further expenses which, for the sake of convenience,
and that the reader may get a bird’s-eye view of
them, I print in a tabular form. The figures given
are for the year 1884-5.
Pensions granted by hei’ Majesty
.............. £24,072
Royal Palaces, occupied wholly or partially by
her Majesty ..............................................
15,466
Royal Palaces, not occupied by her Majesty ...
19,783
Royal Yachts, etc.................................................
39,732
Royal Escort (Household Troops, etc.)..............
31,150
£130,203
Here we have £130,203 expended by or on the
Sovereign, in addition to the Civil List of £385,000
and the revenue of £45,000 from the Duchy of Lan
caster. This makes a grand total of £560,203.
What a sum to lavish on the pride and luxury of
one person ! The President of the United States
only receives £10,000 a year. It is evident, there
�15
fore, unless there is no truth in Cocker, that the
people of this old country fancy a Queen is worth
fifty-six Presidents. The Yankees, however, have
a very different opinion: they laugh at John Bull for
lavishing so much wealth on a single human being,
and facetiously ask him why he complains of bad
trade and hard times when he can afford to fool away
his money in that fashion.
Now, let us turn our profane gaze into the sacred
arcana of the Boyal Household, ft is a pity that
such a glorious Flunkey's Paradise cannot be accu
rately and graphically described by a master hand.
What a wonderful picture of sinecure sloth and
corruption it would be to posterity ! Some writer,
with the pen of a Dickens steeped in the gall of a
Carlyle, should have a carte blanche commission for
the task. He should have unlimited opportunity to
study the ins and outs of the establishment, and the
lives of its officers and servants; and he should be
free to write exactly what he saw and heard, as well
as his own reflections on the matter. Were that
done, there would be at least one imperishable
monument of “ low ambition and the pride of kings."
There is no accessible account of the detailed ex
penditure in this Flunkey's Paradise at present, but
we have a full account of the expenditure in 1836,
on which the amount necessary for Tradesmen's
Bills was calculated. In the Lord Chamberlain's
department there is a bill of £11,381 for “uphols
terers and cabinetmakers," and another of £4,119
for “ locksmiths, ironmongers, and armorers." £284
is paid to sempstresses, so there must be a deal of
�16
shirt-making and mending. The washing bill is
£3,014, and £479 is paid for soap. Doctors and
chemists receive £1,951 for attending and physicing
the flunkeys. Turning to the Lord Steward’s De
partment, we find £2,050 worth of bread consumed,
and £4,976 worth of butter, bacon, eggs, and cheese.
The butcher’s bill comes to £9,472, and the amount
is so great that one wonders there is not a royal
slaughter-house. The flunkeys and the cats con
sumed £1,478 worth of milk and cream, and perhaps
the cats helped the flunkeys to devour the £1,979
Worth of fish. Groceries come to £4,644, fruit and
confectionery to £1,741, wines to £4,850, liqueurs,
etc., to £1,843, and ale and beer to £2,811. Ifthere
is as much boozing now in the Royal Household, it
is high time that Sir Wilfrid Lawson turned his
attention to the subject. The New River Water
Company would supply Buckingham Palace, at least,
with a sufficiency of guzzle at a much cheaper rate.
The nation would gain by the change, and if the
superior flunkeys’ noses were compulsorily toned
down, it might not be very much to their disadvan
tage either.
The Household Salaries are allotted to hundreds
of flunkeys, from the Lord Chamberlain to the
lowest groom or porter. All the chief officials are
lords and ladies. These have to be in immediate
attendance, and Royalty could not tolerate the con
tiguity of plebeians. Pah I an ounce of civet, good
apothecary !
Chief of the flunkeys is the Lord Chamberlain.
This nobleman’s salary is £2,000 a year. He is the
�17
master of the ceremonies, and has to be perfect in
the punctilios of etiquette. Besides looking after
the other flunkeys, he oversees the removal of beds
and wardrobes, and superintends the revels, corona
tions, marriages, and funerals. Lest these onerous
duties should impair his health, he has a Vice
Chamberlain, who is also a nobleman, to assist him at
a salary of £924 a year. Undei’ these gentlemen
there is an Examiner of Plays. This person is paid
£400 a year, besides fees, to decide what plays shall
be placed on the stage. He is also authorised to
strike out from the plays he condescends to license
everything likely to contaminate the public morals,
or bring the Church and State into disrespect. This
official is almighty and irresponsible. There is no
appeal against his fiat. Thirty-five millions of people
have to be satisfied with what he permits them. He
is the despot of the drama; they are his slaves; and
they pay him "several hundreds a year by way of gild
ing their fetters. The result is precisely what might
be expected. While the most vulgar farces and the
most suggestive opera, bouffe are licensed for the pub
lic delectation, some of the noblest masterpieces of
continental dramatic literature are tabooed, because
they deal with profound problems of life and thought
in a manner that might affront the susceptibilities of
Bumble and Mrs. Grundy. Even Shelley's Cenci was
prohibited, and the Shelley Society was obliged to
circumvent the Examiner of Plays by resorting to a
“ private performance." No matter that the loftiest
names in current English literature were associated
with the production of this magnificent play; the
�18
authority of Robert Browning and Algernon Swin
burne was overshadowed by that of the autocrat of
the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who has no standing
in the republic of letters, whose very name is un
known to the multitude of playgoers, who belongs to
the ranks of what Shelley called “ the illustrious
obscure.”
Among the female flunkeys, if I may be allowed
the appellation, are the Mistress of the Robes, with
£500 a year, and eight Ladies of the Bedchamber,
with the same salary. They are required to keep
Her Majesty company for a fortnight, three times in
the course of each year, and when in attendance they
dine at the Royal table. There are also eight Bed
chamber women, at £300 a year each, to serve in
rotation; and eight Maids of Honor, at the same
salary, who reside with Her Majesty in couples, for
four weeks at a time. It was remarked, in the days
of Swift, that Maids of Honor was a queer title, as
they were neither the one nor the other. But let us
hope that a great improvement has taken place since
then.
There is a large Ecclesiastical staff attached to
the Royal Household, but it only costs £1,236 a year.
The smallness of the sum does not imply that clergy
men are cheap, but that many will gladly officiate for
little or nothing at Court, as such appointments are
always considered stepping-stones to valuable pre
ferments.
More than twice as much is expended on the
mortal bodies of the Royal Household as on their
immortal souls. £2,700 a year is paid to Court
�19
physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, and chiropodists,
some receiving salaries, and others fees when in
attendance.
The salaries of the Kitchen Department amount to
no less than £9,983 a year, enough to excite the
wonder of Lucullus. We have no space to recite the
interminable list of menials. Suffice it to say that
the wine-taster has a salary of £500, the chief con
fectioner £300, the chief cook £700, and three
master cooks £350 each. There are also three
well-paid yeomen in charge of the Royal plate,
the value of which is reckoned at two millions
sterling.
Lowest of all in the scale of payment is the Poet
Laureate. His post is a survival of Feudalism. The
Court used to keep a dwarf and a jester, but these
have been discarded, and only the versifier is retained.
His duty is to grind out loyal odes whenever a
member of the Royal family is born, marries, or dies.
A more wretched office could scarcely be conceived.
Yet it is held by Lord Tennyson, who bestows the ex
crements of his genius on the Court. His latest Jubilee
Ode might have been composed by a printer’s devil,
whose brains were muddled by two poems of Walt
Whitman and Martin Tupper set in alternate lines.
The salary of the Laureateship is £100 a year. Seven
hundred a year to the chief cook, and one hundred a
year to the poet! Such are the respective values of
cooking and poetry in the Royal estimation. When
Gibbon presented the second volume of his immortal
histoiy to George the Third, the farmer-king could
only exclaim, “ What, another big book, Mr.
�20
Gibbon ? ” The House of Brunswick has thus been
consistent in its appreciation of literature.
Having taken a rapid look at the Court Flunkeys,
let us come to the great brood of Royal Paupers.
Such a poverty-stricken woman as the Queen cannot
be expected to maintain her children; they are there
fore supported by the State on a scale commensurate
with the Civil List.
The Princess Royal, who is the wife of the Crown
Prince of Germany, receives £8,000 a year. When
she married the nation voted her a dowry of £40,000,
and £5,000 was devoted to fitting up the Chapel
Royal for the wedding.
The Prince of Wales has a pension of £40,000 a
year. He takes £1,350 for the colonelcy of the Tenth
Hussars, a purely sinecure office. Probably the regi
ment would not recognise him if they saw him in
uniform. He lives rent free in Marlborough House,
on which £2,120 was spent in repairs in 1884-5, and
there is a somewhat similar bill every year. The
revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall swell the Prince’s
income by £64,641. Those were the figures in the
year just referred to. During his minority the
revenues of the Duchy accumulated to the amount of
£601,721. A third of this sum was invested in the
purchase of his Sandringham estate, and the rest in
other ways. Returns show that the Prince has
8,079 acres in Norfolk, and 6,810 in Aberdeenshire,
the rental being given at the extremely low figure of
£9,727.
When the Prince of Wales married, the nation
voted him an extra grant of £23,455, and as he was
�21
too poor to support a wife £10,000 a year was secured
to her from the national purse, with a further pro
mise of its being made £30,000 if she survives her
husband. When the Prince visited India, in 1875,
he was allowed £142,000 for the expenses of the
trip, £60,000 being pocket money, for the exercise of
generosity. The presents he gave we paid for; the
presents he received are his. Evidently the Prince
of Wales has much to be thankful for, and he may
celebrate the Jubilee with the utmost cordiality.
Even if he never becomes king, he will have had a
fine old time, and his appearance shows how well it
agrees with him.
The Duke of Edinburgh was voted £15,000 a-year
on attaining his majority in 1866. When he married,
in 1874, the amount was increased to £25,000,
although a few brave and honest Radicals opposed
the additional grant to the Prince “ for marrying
the richest heiress in Europe
His wife is the Czar’s
daughter; she brought him a private fortune of
£90,000, a marriage portion of £300,000, and a life
annuity of £11,250. Being a royal pauper, the
Duke does nothing for his pension. He takes
£3,102 for his post in the navy. They give him
command of the Mediterranean Fleet in time of
peace, but in time of war his fiddling tunes might
be preferable to his shouting orders. Let us, however,
be fair. There are some who say that he handles a
fleet splendidly; yet there are others who believe
that if the Peers took a trip round the world in one
of our ironclads, under the actual command of the
Duke of Edinburgh, there would be no need to
�22
agitate for their abolition. We may add that the
Duke has a yearly allowance of £1,800 from SaxeCobourg, and on the death of his uncle, the reigning
Duke, he will inherit a fortune of £30,000 a year.
AVhen he comes into that windfall he will, perhaps,
resign the pension of £25,000 a year he draws from
us. It would be a graceful act. But, alas! the House
of Brunswick has never been noted for grace.
The Princess Christian receives £6,000 a year,
and £30,000 was voted to her on her mam'a,go, The
Princess Louise had a similar dowry, and her pension
is also £6,000 a year. The Duchess of Albany,
widow of Prince Leopold, has £6,000, the Princess
Mary £5,000, and the Princess Augusta £3,000.
The Duke of Connaught's pension is £25,000. His
military reputation was achieved in Egypt, where
Lord Wolseley officiated as his wet-nurse. He was
kept out of danger, and specially mentioned in a des
patch from the field of battle. At present he is
Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, a post whose
abolition was recommended by the Military Com
mission. He draws pay at the rate of £6,000 a year.
Sir John Gorst will ask Parliament to pass a Bill
authorising the Duke to come home to celebrate the
Jubilee without forfeiting his office. Of course the .
Bill will pass, but the cream of the joke is that we
shall have to pay the cost of his journey. The move
ments of princes are expensive. The national
exchequer trembles when they blow their noses.
Another Royal Paupei’ of the warrior caste is the
Duke of Cambridge, This Prince is the Queen’s
uncle. His pension is £12,000 a year. His salary
�23
and perquisites as Banger of St. James’s, Green, Hyde,
and Richmond Parks are estimated at over £2,000 a
year. As Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief he
takes £4,500 a year. He is also Colonel of the
Grenadier Guards at £2,132 a year. His military /
genius is renowned throughout the world, and
his noble brow is circled with the deathless laurels
he won in the Crimea. His corpulence makes him
a commanding figure, and although his sword is
not famous, his umbrella is the terror of our enemies.
It only remains to add that poverty prevents him
from maintaining a wife. The Duchess of Cambridge,
therefore, enjoys a separate pension of £6,000 a year.
Besides the Royal pensioners, there are a few of
the Queen’s relatives (Germans, of course) who
sponge on the British taxpayer. Prince Edward of
Saxe-Weimar draws £3,384 a year from the Army,
and his Dublin residence is worth another thousand.
Prince Deiningen takes £593 a year as a half-pay
Vice-Admiral. Count Gleichen receives £740 as a
retired Vice-Admiral, and £1,120 as Governor of
Windsor Castle.
There is always a make-weight, even in accounts.
Accordingly we find a lot of extra expense in the
£4,881 paid in pensions to various surviving friends
and servants of George III., George IV., William IV.,
and Queen Charlotte.
Directly and indirectly the Royal Family costs the
nation the stupendous sum of £808,316 a year. The
vastness of such an amount is difficult for ordinary
minds to realise. Let us, therefore, analyse it, and
see what it makes in detail. It would maintain
�24
10,365 families at £1 10s. a week. It represents
£2,215 every day, £92 an hour, and £1 10s. 6d. every
minute. We frequently hear it said that the payment
of Members of Parliament would be too expensive.
But £300 a year is the outside salary proposed by
Radicals; and the annual cost of the Royal Family
would suffice to pay every member of the House of
Commons that salary four times over.
Thick-and-thin loyalists sometimes urge that we
have no right to grumble at the expense of Royalty.
The sovereign, they say, accepts a Civil List in lieu
of the Royal Revenues, and the nation gains by the
contract. But this argument is unconstitutional.
The Crown Revenues are not private property; they
belong to the monarch, just as the crown does, by
virtue of Acts of Parliament, and all Acts of Parlia
ment can be modified or repealed. If the Crown
Lands, for instance, were personal estate, they could
not be alienated from the present possessor. Should
the Queen, however, turn Roman Catholic, she could
not continue to occupy the throne. The Prince of
Wales would succeed her at once, and if Tie turned
Roman Catholic, the next heir would immediately
succeed him. In each case the Crown Revenues
would change hands. It is obvious, therefore, that
those Revenues are the appanage of the Crown solely
by virtue of law ; and it necessarily follows that the
nation has the legal as well as the moral right to
settle the Civil List as it pleases.
Other Loyalists urge the spendthrift objection that
the cost of the Royal Family- is trifling when distri
buted over the entire population. Why make a fuss,
r
�25
they ask, about fivepence half-penny each ? It is less
than the price of a quart of beer, or two ounces of cheap
tobacco. True, but many mickles make a muckle. The
lavish expenditure on Royalty corrupts our national
'economy. The cost of government, the expenses of the
Army and Navy, rise higher and higher every year.
Since the Queen’s accession, indeed, they have nearly
quadrupled. A nation cannot waste its money on titled
idlers without lavishing it shamefully in other
directions.
There is another way of replying to this foolish
objection.
What good might be done with that
£808,316 a year if it were otherwise expended ! It
would maintain museums, art galleries, and public
libraries throughout the country on the most munifi
cent scale, as the following table very clearly shows.
Towns.
Per Year.
Total.
5 at £20,000 = £100,000
10,000 = 100,000
10 „
5,000 =
20 „
100,000
2,500 =
40 „
100,000
100 „
1,000 =
100,000
616 „
500 =
308,000
£808,000
This is only one illustration. The ingenious reader
will think of many more, and he can work out the
figures himself.
Now let us glance at the functions of Royalty. We
have seen its cost, and we must try to ascertain its
worth.
�26
“ The King reigns but does not govern," and
therefore “the King can do no wrong.’' These
maxims of constitutional monarchy imply that the
sovereign exercises no direct power.
Even Lord
Salisbury, who is a thorough-paced courtier, would
shrink from publicly maintaining “ the right divine
of Kings to govern wrong." The Queen rules through
her Ministers. What they resolve on is executed in
her name. But she herself has no choice in the
matter. She is nominally able to refuse her assent
to an Act which has passed both branches of the
Legislature, but the first time she ventured to exert
that cc right ” the Crown would be brought into^dangerous collision with the people. Nor can* her
Ministers act without the Consent of Parliament. The
monarchy has been gradually shorn of its perogatives,
until it has become a political fiction. We are
really living under a veiled Republic, and the sooner
the mischievous and costly disguise-is flung aside the
better for the welfare and integrity of the nation.
Calling one of her “ subjects ” to form a Ministry
is the Queen’s first function. But this involves no
wisdom or decision, for there is no choice. It is not
Her Majesty,‘but the electorate, that decides who
shall be Premier. The Queen simply summons the
acknowledged leader of whichever party triumphs at
the ballot. If the Conservatives win she calls Lord
Salisbury, if the Liberals win she calls Mr. Gladstone.
Her personal wishes count for less than those of the
humblest ratepayer, for he has a vote and she has none.
Her next business is to open and close Parliament.
This duty, however, is seldom performed. Her
�Majesty rarely emerges from her widowed seclusion,
except to give a fillip to a Tory government. For
many years after Prince Albert’s death she felt
unequal to the exertion, although she had strength
enough to participate in ghillie balls. If a washer
woman complained that she was so cut up by the
death of her husband that it was impossible to work,
and expected regular payment without sending home
any clean linen, she would quickly weary her patrons,
and find it prudent to return to the tub. Yet a
Queen can indulge in the luxury of woe for twenty
years, and her flatterers will account it a virtue.
Thomas Carlyle wrote a significant little sentence on
this subject. Acknowledging a presentation copy of
Gilchrist’s Life of William Blake, which Mrs. Gilchrist
bravely saw through the press after her husband’s
death, Carlyle wrote : “ Your own little Preface is all
that is proper—could but the Queen of these realms
have been as Queen-like in her widowhood I ”
As for the Queen’s Speech, it is a ridiculous farce.
The document is drawn up by the Ministry, and its
sentiments differ with the succession of parties.
Generally, too. it is read by proxy. Her Majesty,
therefore, neither reads it nor writes it.
It is no
more hers than mine.
When Parliament is opened or prorogued in the
Queen’s absence, the royal robes are thrown over the
royal chair, and the Lords bow in passing them,
precisely as though the sovereign sat there. The
garments do as well as the wearer. Why, then, go
to the expense of filling them out ? With all rever
ence, I make the following suggestion. Let half-a-
�dozen of our finest artists be commissioned to carve
and chase a Phidean statue in ivory and gold, tn
occupy the royal chair instead of the Queen. The
expense would be incurred once for all, and we
should know the full extent of our liability. The
present monarchical idol could then be discarded for
the cheaper substitute, which would probably be quite
as useful, and certainly quite as handsome.
Next, her Majesty signs Acts of Parliament. I
would undertake to sign them all for £50 a year, and
my handwriting is as good as the Queen’s. As a
matter of fact, it is not the Royal signature that gives
validity to statutes. During one of George the Third’s,
fits of insanity, it is said that Lord Eldon used acounterfeit of the King’s signature, which was
engraved for the purpose; yet the Acts of Parliament
thus ratified were no less operative than those which
bore the King’s autograph. Under the Common
wealth the Great Seal was broken up, and a new one
substituted. On one side was a map of England
and Ireland; on the other, the device, “ In the first
year of freedom, by God’s blessing restored.” AIL
resolutions and orders of the House were signed by
the Speaker as nominal Chief of the State. “ Mr..
Speaker ” is still the First Commoner, and why can
not his signature be attached to Acts of Parliament
instead of an hereditary official’s ? The laws of a freecountry are the expression of the people’s will, and
they depend on no individual’s concurrence for theirvalidity and force.
These are absolutely all the“ functions” of Royalty,,
though there are other reasons adduced in its favor..
�29
While we retain a throne, filled by hereditary right,
it is urged that we avoid an undignified scramble for
the highest position in the State. But what scramble
is there for the Presidency in France ? Or what
particular scramble is there for it in the United
States, where the President is elected by a kind of
plebiscite ? Whatever scramble there is, some very
good men manage to win. From Washington to
Cleveland there have been many illustrious names.
Have we had a single sovereign who could be men
tioned in the same breath with the best of them ?'
What is our boast ? George the Third, the madman
George the Fourth, the profligate; William the
Fourth, the ninny; and Victoria, whose loftiest virtue
is that, being a Queen, she has lived like an honest
woman. The single name of Lincoln outweighs a
thousand such; nay, compared with his greatness,
they are but dust in the balance.
We are further told that Society (with a capital S)
must have a head. But what' is this Society ? Does
it include the great thinkers and workers, th ez poets,
artists, philosophers, and scientists ? No; it com
prises the lazy, pampered classes, whose wealth and
titles are their only passports to esteem, whose highest
ambition is to be presented at Court and invited to
royal levees. These people are not a sign of national
health, but a sign of national disease. Let them, if
they must, pursue their idle round of foolish pleasure,
but let them elect and support their own “ head ”
without expecting the nation to countenance their
frivolity by maintaining the Head of the State as the
master or mista\ ss of their foppish ceremonies.
�Lastly, the monarchy is defended on the ground
that a State must have a figure-head. But this is a
fatal plea. When monarchy was a reality the King
stood at the helm. If the sovereign is to be an orna
mental figure under the bowsprit, why should he cost
us an admiral’s salary for painting and gilding ?
Besides, figure-heads become very expensive when
they beget little figure-heads, whose maintenance in
a proper state of decoration is a first charge on the
freightage.
There is one function which her Majesty, ever
since Prince Albert’s death, has been unconsciously
performing. She has been teaching the people that
the monarchy is not indispensable. By habituating
them to dispense with its forms and pageants, she
has shown them how unessential it is to our political
life. Without the least intention, she has been pre
paring the way for a Republic. A few timid Radi
cals, and many Liberals, may stand aghast at the
prospect, but they cannot escape the result of cen
turies of historic tendency. From the day when the
Long Parliament condemned to death ie the man
Charles Stuart,” and established a Commonwealth,
“without King or House of Lords,” the fire of
Republicanism has never been extinguished in the
heart of England. It was allayed by Cromwell, and
it almost expired under Charles the Second, but it
faintly revived under his successor, and it has
gradually strengthened ever since. It gleamed
in many an epigram of Pope, it shone in the
eloquence of Bolingbroke, it quivered in many a
line of Cowper, it kindled the young muse of Words-
�31
worth, it glowed in the songs of Burns, it coruscated
in the satire .of Byron, it flamed in the lyrics of
Shelley, it burned with a steady light in the prose of
Thomas Paine. Nor was the noble tradition lost in
the reaction after the French Revolution. For two
generations it survived in the genius of Landor, and
since his death it has inspired the genius of Swinburne.
Royalty is now moribund, and democracy is striding
to the throne. After centuries of slumber the
People are at length awake, and the noble words
of John Milton may be re-echoed in a later age.
“ Methinks 1 see in my mind a noble and puissant
nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep,
and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I
see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth,
and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full
midday beam, purging and unsealing her longabused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly
radiance/'’ While she was asleep the privileged
classes, from the monarch to the meanest aristocrat,
battened upon her like vampires. But their night is
over. They lurk and wait in vain for her relapse.
They fancy the daylight an illusion, yet they are~
deceived. Democracy is like the grave, it yields
nothing back; and a nation once awakened does not
sleep again until she dies. The day of her freedom
is the day of her life. For as';the dull sense of the
brute grows into full consciousness in man, s® the
rude instincts of the multitude grow into the con
scious life of a people, widening and clearing for
evermore.
�THE
Shadow of the Sword.
SECOND EDITION,
REVISED
AND
ENLARGED.
BY
Gm Wm FOOTE.
PRICE
TWOPKWOE.
PRESS OPINIONS.
“ An ably-written pamphlet, exposing the horrors of war and
the burdens imposed upon the people by the war systems of
Europe. . . . The author deserves thanks for this timely publi
cation.”—Echo.
“ A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone
should read.”—Weekly Times.
“ A wonderfully eloquent denunciation of the war fever.”—
Birmingham Owl.
“ This pamphlet presents us with some startling truths that are
well worth preserving.”—The People (Wexford).
“ Should be in the hands of all advocates of peace.”—Our
Corner.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
f
r.
V
jk
f
F
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N262
Subject
The topic of the resource
Monarchy
Republicanism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS
Queen Victoria